UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video)

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of. So I suggest to you the reader to get the word out on this one. Spread it far and wide. This is big ifonly symbolic. -Mort

Comments

THIS IS A PRISON PLANET BECAUSE ALL THE PEOPLE HERE ARE CAPTURED BY THIS DARK FORCE, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE CABAL. IT REACHES WAY BEYOND EARTH. ROBERT MORNINGSKY OF THE HOPI TRIBE SPILLED THE TRUTH IN A DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE TERRA PAPERS WHERE HIS PEOPLE SHELTERED AN ET FOUND IN A CRASHED STAR SHIP. THE ET TOLD THE AMERICAN INDIANS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE REPTILIAN FORCES WHO OWN UNIVERSES AND EARTH WAS OWNED BY THEM.

THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH ETS AND WHO CAN ASTRAL PROJECT HAVE DISCOVERED THIS INFORMATION TO BE CORRECT. WE ARE MIND CONTROLLED, AND IN A PRISON SO SOPHISTICATED THAT TO DATE, THERE IS NO WAY OUT. THIS IS WHY ALL THE SHIPS PEOPLE REPORT SEEING ARE DENIED BY THE POWERS THAT BE, TO ENSURE WE CANNOT GET OUT, WE CANNOT CONNECT, WE CANNOT GET THE RIGHT INFORMATION TO THEM TO HELP US. WITH THE ABILITIES OF A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS TO GET INFORMATION TO ETS, WHO HAVE BEEN SHOCKED AND HORRIFIED ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE EVIL AND CRUELTY THAT OCCURS DAILY ON THIS PLANET.

Not sure what you are saying. But keep in mind that the plan adopted by the neocons to get us into the middle east was the Yinon Plan of regime change written in 1982. This plan was adopted by the neocons and put into action by the evil deeds of Dick Cheney and his neocon friends in 2001.

Look what has happened because of 9/11, we have had regime change in Iraq, Libya, Egypt but it failed, and now Syria is in the sights of the Yinon Plan. Here is the plan. Read it:

Yeah, and I see Obama trying hard to find peace. So hard, in fact, that he never closed Gitmo, Went HARD CORE back into Afghanistan, took 5-years to finally leave Iraq, bought 2700 MRAPS to arm civilian police to act as gestapo against American Citizens, doubled our national debt in less than 2-terms, and sold us lock-stock-and-barrel to the one world government, while he bowed to just about every tin-horn-dictator he could find a place to drop his kneepads for.

Yeah, it’s all Bush’s fault. I see. Now, talk me through that $3.50 a gallon gas, that failed border policy, and that open-and-transparent government that Obama promised almost 6-years ago. You know, the one that keeps going after every single citizen that it thinks it can take down because they are simple individuals.

Sorry – but fools like you cheered Hitler too. It just gets grating to keep seeing it happen, because you are too dense to learn from the past. FYI, if your people would quit re-writing (revisionist) history, maybe you could actually learn from it.

So why are we the American citizens suing? We should sue both the direct criminal and all those that prospered from the tragedy. Oh yeah……….We can be murdered in the name of the government but we can not do anything to the government because it is against the law. You have to be employed by the private corporation before they recognize you as alive. Until then you are sheep for killing.

Any “bill of right” or the like is a treaty between the Government of the United States and the United States……………….Not the Citizens

You citizen can do nothing to interact with the governments course of action. And do not tell me how the fake representation has that unitive.
No citizen , without first proving their dedication to the crown and crown politics has ever set foot in authority. At least here in oppression of the Government of the United States Citizens.

They are suppose to represent us but all they do is betray us.

We can not even change the course of our states. The ones we try to put up turn around and vote to give away America. First vote they do. Every time…………… They are just learning the Crown politics……….. Traitors ………………..

If you represent and do not do what the people want then you are a dictator and not representing the desires of the people… We put them in positions then immediately they are above our laws and reach….. That is because they are learning from the Government that the Citizens are what is supposed to be controlled. Every one else is like a Jailer or cop. They are immune from our wants and desires because they are told that they are here to control us from rioting against the government.

It is true. That is there only purpose.
In the mind we are choosing our own jail and jailers so we do not fight back at all. SUBJUGATION
Is the tool of every invading force. A tool to teach the invaded that they are to be controlled. That they are worth less than another. Less value is slavery. That is you citizen. They change the words to make you blinded by your own beliefs.

Nothing has been done about the CIA killing Kennedy. Nothing has been done about the invasion of our country. Nothing has been done about 9-11.
AND NOTHING EVER WILL BE DONE

we living souls need no representation. we are present and presented in a council self-governed, which is the natural and historical way peaceful beings have always lived. keep the rich culture of each land alive without trying to homogenize everyone. these things could easily be achieved if money were no object, which it isn’t, it’s an illusion.
you are right, we are not represented but maybe we can learn to not keep putting others in charge of our lives instead of always seeking the next daddy, leader, saviour.
this is how they control us.
abolish the party CYSTem.
politics and poverty go hand in hand. get rid of politics, it stinks. and usury.

I absolutely believe there are serious problems with the official 9/11 story but this particular story is nonsense as a uk lawyer I can tell you everyone who owns a tv has to pay a licence. The court would not care about the reason for not paying and disagreeing with the BBC is not a defence.As far as I know the man was given an unconditional diacharge which is still a criminal conviction. If he did not have a licence he would be convicted simple as that.

Well, as a UK lawyer, then you must be intimately acquainted with the definition of what “malignant status quo” means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. I would advise extracting you head from your heiny and realizing you cannot apply band aids to the titanic from the inside.

Get out and Get God.

The time left available during which you might meaningfully prove just Whose side you are on….

Hi Sue.. I do believe you have something a little skewed here. The BBC is a private Company/corporation, with share holders and make profit. Unless you actually have a contract with them, then they have no authority.. NONE.. ZERO.. NOTHING.. ZILCH… And the BBC know it.. The licence enforcement officers need your name, address and signature for that contract, otherwise, they have absolutely nothing.. zero.. zilch…
You are not obliged to answer any question, give them any information, give your name, nothing.. It is that simple..
Have a great day

I thought a contract was between at least 2 parties that both SIGNED the contract with benefit to both parties. You can have a quasi contract which is founded by law on the circumstances, irrespective of the wishes of both parties, or implied, founded by law on the assumed intention of the parties. Either which way, they rent their studios out to commercial TV stations that profit from the programmes through merchandise, which people who were pressed ganged & hoodwinked into buying the licence don’t see a penny of, surely if you’ve been forced into a contract, you should at least see the benefits of it, not that much negotiation takes place!!! So I don’t agree with it, tacitly or otherwise, statutory or common law. & thats why I don’t pay it. & never will. They employ Capita to do their press ganging & bullying. They’re shysters, who also squander the money on stupid, massive banker style pay-offs as well. Nice bunch, then there’s the highly paid paedos & cover ups… I could go on.

Anonymous, you seem to have misunderstood Sue’s comment. Under section 363 of the Communications Act 2002, it is a criminal offence in the UK to operate a television receiver without a TV licence. It does not matter that the BBC is a corporate body, or whether the viewer has a contract with them or not; government legislation means it is a crime to watch any channel without a licence. In your previous comment you state that you do not have to pay for a television licence under common law; this is true, but the offence is statutory, not common law, so Sue remains correct.

Well, I would never have you represent me thats for sure..
YOU DO NOT have to pay any TV licence fee in the UK under common law.. Plain and simple.
This guy, albeit he fought his case actually fails in many senses because he dos not have to pay the licence fee if he lives by the true law of the Nation and not by a corporate law and corporate taxation. I have never paid for my licence and I never will and the BBC and TV licence collectors actually know these facts, but they will always continue to keep fleecing you… It is lawyers like you who screw us all… Get some education.

Although the term criminal conviction is used, this is actually wrong, its an offence not a crime to receive TV signals without a licence (except in a few exceptions).

Sadly an absolute discharge is still classed as a conviction in the UK, but not the USA, I support it being used like a court aquittal based on the source creating the offence being wrong in this case.

wow, your not a very good UK lawyer are you so I wouldnt believe a word you say. It is not a criminal offence in the UK to be in possesion of a TV, Its only an offence to use it to recieve live TV broadcasts.

His defence was that the BBC was supporting terrorism by demonstrating foreknowledge of a terrorist attack and that he would be breaking the law if he paid his licence as this could be construed as financially supporting terrorism too. He was given a discharge but his case was so compelling that even the prosecution chipped in to help him pay his fine.

You are absolutely right, Sue. Tony Rooke was convicted of a criminal offence.

Judge Nicholls said that, even if he accepted and agreed with the evidence, that would not give him grounds to rule that Rooke was not guilty.

A magistrates’ court did not have the authority to make a ruling under the Terrorism Act, he said, so he would not be able to say that the need to obey it outweighed the need to obey the Communications Act.

He found Rooke guilty, and imposed a six month conditional discharge with £200 legal costs.

This is exceptionally compelling information, if true!
The ‘conspiracy theorists’ have not capitalized on this juicy piece of evidence?
Or has this too been another media coverup?
We would love to be loyal to our US heritage but after the assassination of JFK, his brother, MLK, the Clintons antics & the double election of Obumma, it’s mighty difficult to swallow the War on Drugs & the War on Terror while daily murders are policed by thugs wid badges n guns!

before I ask my question here and make a statement I want to establish I fully believe that 911 was a false flag carried out with the Bush administration in conjunction with elements within the Israeli Government.

1st My question. Has the time of that video been established as definitely having taken place before building 7 was “pulled” by obvious demolition?

My statement is although the MSM including the BBC are more or less talking head Buffoons controlled by the Governments, and real reporting and investigative reporters started to died out in the 80′s and were all but gone by 2000. What happened to reporters like Woodward and Bernstein?
Is is possible in this case the reporter was standing in front of a green screen running video filmed earlier in the day? I am 99% sure she is in front of a green screen, the question is was it a live feed or taped footage from earlier and used because it showed more smoke and action that may have not been on a live feed. If it has been established the footage was definitely from before building #7 fell, that is undeniable proof that the news agencies were given scripts and are nothing but an extension of a government propaganda agency.

Having saw investigative reports on things I am very familiar with and one that I was used as as expert witness on a subject in court. I know 1st hand how they tell half truths and give only information that vilifies something in order to get people worked up and in fear of things that are really nothing to worry about unless you have an agenda against it.

Except he lost and had to pay the court costs. It’s a civil contract, not a criminal offence. So if the BBC wanted to push it’s advantage they could send the heavies in to reclaim losses if they wished. The fact they haven’t doesn’t mean he won, it means he was lucky the BBC let it go.

She reports ‘smoke’ rising from the WTC site. It is not smoke it is dust, continually breaking down into smaller and smaller particles as time goes by, the original particles being coarse enough mostly to have settled out over much of lower Manhattan. The darker cloud center top is part of the interior of WTC 7 being dustified and drawn out of the building. Eventually the shell will collapse, but by that time there is so little substance left inside that the seismic trace is almost nil – barely perceptible and far to weak to be measured. The shell did fall at free fall speed and didn’t turn so much into dust as had the towers. The directed energy weaponry was apparently not able to reach WTC 7 as effectively as it did the towers and WTC 4 which also turned to dust.

30 seconds on google and you will see this story simply is not true to the facts. Yes he went to court, where he lost and was ordered to pay costs and get a TV licence. I joined this site simply to point this out and will judge this site on whether they take down this comment.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the conspiracies surrounding 9/11. They all amount to people saying they don’t think a building would fall like in this or that way. A conspiracy with hundreds of people involved would have left evidence. And some of the claims of conspiracy theorists are absurd like trying to explain all the real time phone calls from people stating that the planes were hijacked. Sorry but I believe the people on the flight and what they saw.

Just so all you people out there that may not keep up with UK news know. This guy did not win his court case he lost it and was fined and given a conditional discharge. the way the conspiracy theory sites have lied about this story is just another example of people like Alex Jones and David Ickes money grabbing ways. once again you have been lied to by these people who’s real intention is to put themselves in power

This is a post from another site, dont believe everything you read …..

There IS a grain of truth at the root of this story. But, unfortunately, nearly every detail given is wrong.

Tony Rooke did not win his case.

His case was NOT about the BBC’s pre-announcement of building 7′s collapse.

He therefore did NOT say that the BBC had prior knowledge.

Although it’s technically true that he did ‘present’ video footage along with other evidence to the judge”, this amounted to Rooke simply offering a package of his evidence to the judge at a pre-trial review. This was taken by the judge and Tony believes that he did personally review it, but he made no such acknowledgement and none of it was permitted by the judge to be shown or examined in court!

The judge did NOT agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case.

Rooke was NOT found not guilty. He was given a conditional discharge and sentencing was suspended for six months. (This meant that he would escape sentencing if he was not brought before magistrates for any other offence during the six months following the trial.) If he had been found not guilty, there would have been no need for a discharge and no suspended sentence.

The Judge proceeded according to the rules of “strict liability” – no requirement for any guilty intention – if you did it you are guilty regardless of your state of mind. In this case the ‘it’ is receiving broadcast television pictures while not in possession of a valid television licence.

About the only details that your story has correct are that Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because he alleged the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks and and you are technically correct that he did not get fined. He did however, have to pay the prosecutions costs – about £400, I believe, and just a little more than the minimum fine would have been.

I know all this because I know Tony Rooke and I was at the trial.

It was on 25th February this year (2013) and held at Horsham Magistrates Court, Horsham Sussex, UK. You’ll be able to check out some of the details I give above by asking the court, although, because magistrates’ courts are not courts of record, no transcript is made or kept of the proceedings – the only records kept are the charges laid, against whom, who presided and the decision made.

Rooke’s case against the BBC was entirely based upon the failure of the BBC to report the free fall speed of collapse of the building after it was subsequently proven and acknowledged by NIST in their final report. Thereby, he claimed, that the BBC, having withheld vital evidence from the British public in it’s reporting was, in effect, advancing the cause of terrorism by perpetuating an incorrect understanding of the mechanism of the collapse and, by extension, the possible identity of the perpetrators. He, therefore maintained that he had “reasonable cause” to believe that the BBC was advancing the cause of terrorism and therefore would be guilty under section 15 (3) of the Terrorism Act if he paid his TV licence fee.

“A person commits an offence if he—
(a)provides money or other property, and
(b)knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.”

The judge said he could not, in a Magistrates Court, create a new defence to “strict liability” which he claimed would have been required if he were to accept Rooke’s evidence – thus rejecting, as inapplicable, the precedent of an exception to strict liability that Rooke presented.

The judge therefore did NOT agree “that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest”. In fact, he said nothing at all about the case that Rooke wished to present, saying that even if he did permit Rooke’s evidence to be presented in the court, it could not make any difference to the judgement that he was bound to make because of strict liability. This was his justification for not allowing the evidence.

By this means, the judge prevented the evidence from being heard in the open court.

Having heard what the judge said about the inadmissibility of his evidence, Rooke had asked for an unconditional discharge and not to be compelled to pay the licence fee, saying “I don’t want to be guilty of terrorism”.

I was told, and I do not understand the reason for it if it is the case, that because of the conditional discharge, Rooke was unable to appeal. If that is true, the judge also prevented the evidence from being presented to a higher court and thus entered into the record there.

Tony has interpreted the conditional discharge and lack of a (technical) fine or a sentence as a moral ‘victory’ (the best that could have been expected under the circumstances).

I am more skeptical. I see it as a clever sequence of manoeuvres to lock out any official consideration of the evidence. The judge’s apparent leniency may have been more a case of self-interest: there were over 100 people in and outside a very small courthouse (only three courtrooms), the vast majority of whom it was clear were Rooke’s supporters. The judge may have been concerned for his own safety if he had not given some apparent quarter to Rooke. There were a score or more police inside and outside of the building by the time the trial ended. There was no trouble at all. In fact some reasonably good-natured conversations were held with police, but it was clear that they had been primed to be ready for a scuffle!

The same people that brought you 9/11 are going all out to start another major war and they don’t seem to care if its Russia or China or Iran so long as you all keep paying taxes to be spent building tanks and planes built by corporations that are owned by the jewish banking system.

The BBC is an elite propaganda machine that forces people to pay for the filth they pedal through a yearly license fee. If you do not pay up it will be dealt with by the law courts, as it is a criminal offense not to have one if you own a TV, even if you do not watch the channel. Can anyone not see the problem with this form of taxation?

Mr Trump will say anything to win votes and says he will expose who did 9/11 if he wins but he will just push the offical story as if anyone that knows basic physic’s will beleive anything he says afterwards.

Tell me Mr Americans have your politicians made you safer sine 9/11 with this fake war on terror where the USA has been backing ISIS using proxy governments like Turkey and Saudi Arabia who apparantly did 9/11 and we are now selling/giving them weapons like mad and that might also include nukes.

The country is full of cowards who don’t have the balls to hold the government to account and ask “How High” when told to jump by a pig police officer whilst walking down the street.